| Literature DB >> 29360786 |
Yang Zhang1, Ping Jiang2, Hongyan Zhang3, Peng Cheng4.
Abstract
Thermal infrared remote sensing has become one of the main technology methods used for urban heat island research. When applying urban land surface temperature inversion of the thermal infrared band, problems with intensity level division arise because the method is subjective. However, this method is one of the few that performs heat island intensity level identification. This paper will build an intensity level identifier for an urban heat island, by using weak supervision and thought-based learning in an improved, restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) model. The identifier automatically initializes the annotation and optimizes the model parameters sequentially until the target identifier is completed. The algorithm needs very little information about the weak labeling of the target training sample and generates an urban heat island intensity spatial distribution map. This study can provide reliable decision-making support for urban ecological planning and effective protection of urban ecological security. The experimental results showed the following: (1) The heat island effect in Wuhan is existent and intense. Heat island areas are widely distributed. The largest heat island area is in Wuhan, followed by the sub-green island. The total area encompassed by heat island and strong island levels accounts for 54.16% of the land in Wuhan. (2) Partially based on improved RBM identification, this method meets the research demands of determining the spatial distribution characteristics of the internal heat island effect; its identification accuracy is superior to that of comparable methods.Entities:
Keywords: China; Wuhan; green island; improved restricted Boltzmann machine; intensity level identification; urban heat island
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29360786 PMCID: PMC5858261 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of study area.
Acquisition information of remote sensing image data.
| Acquisition Time | Line | Number | Image Type | Thermal Infrared Band Spatial Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 July 2016 | 123 | 39 | Band 1 Coastal | 30 m |
| Band 2 Blue | 30 m | |||
| Band 3 Green | 30 m | |||
| Band 4 Red | 30 m | |||
| Band 5 NIR | 30 m | |||
| Band 6 SWIR 1 | 30 m | |||
| Band 7 SWIR 2 | 30 m | |||
| Band 8 Pan | 15 m | |||
| Band 9 Cirrus | 30 m | |||
| Band 10 TIRS 1 | 100 m | |||
| Band 11 TIRS 2 | 100 m |
Figure 2Technical route. RBM: restricted Boltzmann machine; NDVI: normalized vegetation index.
Inversion regression coefficients of TIRS in different temperature ranges ( and are the determinants of the fit).
| Temperature Range/°C | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–30 | −59.139 | 0.421 | 0.9991 | −63.392 | 0.457 | 0.9991 |
| 0–40 | −60.919 | 0.428 | 0.9985 | −65.224 | 0.463 | 0.9985 |
| 10–40 | −62.806 | 0.434 | 0.9992 | −67.173 | 0.47 | 0.9992 |
| 10–50 | −64.608 | 0.44 | 0.9986 | −69.022 | 0.476 | 0.9986 |
Relationships between atmospheric transmittance (τ) and water vapor (ω) content when the water vapor content is from 0.5 to 3 g/cm2.
| Atmospheric Mode | Atmospheric Transmittance Estimation Equation | |
|---|---|---|
| The United States in 1976 standard atmosphere | 0.9982 | |
| Mid-latitude summer | 0.9986 |
Figure 3Construction process of the RBM model.
Figure 4Spatial distribution of the surface urban heat island (SUHI) in Wuhan.
Figure 5Land surface temperature changes in the profile line.
Urban heat island level statistical results in Wuhan.
| Heat Island Level | Area | Area Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Green island | 21,341 | 16.55% |
| Sub-green island | 37,753 | 29.28% |
| Heat island | 50,525 | 39.19% |
| Strong heat island | 19,304 | 14.97% |
Figure 6Urban heat island intensity level identification results in Wuhan.
Identification accuracy comparison of different methods.
| Identification Model | K-Means Clustering | Genetic K-Means Clustering | Improved RBM Identifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Accuracy | 73.39% | 91.22% | 93.31% |
| Kappa | 0.6725 | 0.8735 | 0.8861 |
| Testing time | 2.87 | 0.91 | 0.72 |
Figure 7Comparison of identification results obtained by different methods.